2016 Presidencial Race

Started by Time Immemorial30 pages

Originally posted by krisblaze
From what I've seen of the republican side most aren't too caught up in everybody eating, having shelter or stuff like that.

A president should first and foremost care for the wellbeing of his/her people. Any president's main priority should be alleviate the pressing hunger and health concerns in the nation, not ****ing tax exempts for fatcats who supposedly work "oh so hard".

Shame that we see this in so many countries.

The papers here keep talking about how grateful we should be to be living in the world's something-est country. Richest, greatest, most developed, some bullshit.

There are still thousands of kids who don't know when or how they're getting their next meal.

Meanwhile national politicians are caught up in whether or not we should accept 10 000 refugees from syria and how many billions we should send the warlords of africa.

You are literally clueless to the worlds problems.

You know the presidents own advisors such as Al Sharpton are tax cheats, and so was Timothy head of the treasury.

Originally posted by Surtur
Of course we are a democracy..in theory anyways. Sometimes it feels like we decided to give emergency powers to Emperor Palpatine.

LOL. No, we're not. Keep telling yourself that all you want to. Won't make it true regardless of how many times you or anyone else shows your/their ignorance and makes that retarded statement. Go back to school and learn the pledge of allegiance, dude. We're a republic. Period

Also, you bringing Star Wars into this shows how clueless you really are on the subject and that you need a reality check.

Can we please cut out this 'democracy definition' trolling that seems to be creeping into many threads? It's very tiresome. Star428, you will just have to accept that despite what you think is a definite answer, the US fits the widely used definition of a democracy, as with most western countries- your obsession that 'democracy' has to mean 'majority rule' is your own problem, not anyone else's. Now, if you want to debate that, make a thread entirely about it. Otherwise just keep quiet about it, because I am not going to tolerate you using it as an excuse to flame people like you just did.

Of course it doesn't matter to you if people keep spreading lies about what type of government we are because you're not even American. If anyone is "trolling" it's the people who keep ignorantly claiming the U.S. is a democracy. Not the person who is correcting them. How would you feel if someone kept spreading lies about what type of government your country is? If someone claimed your country was a communist one, for example, are you telling me u wouldn't correct them? If so, I don't believe you.

I didn't ask for a debate or argument about it- like I said, take that to its own thread, and keep it out of everywhere else. That's the end of the matter.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I didn't ask for a debate or argument about it- like I said, take that to its own thread, and keep it out of everywhere else. That's the end of the matter.

Fine by me, mr. moderator, but if any of the pro-democracy people bring anything up about it are u going to give the same warning to them as u did to me or let it slide?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Yet the clintons make 30 million a year for personal income. A modest living for people too aspire too.

But hey the street is only one way in politics.

Hillary is worth about 22million net, so I don't see how together they're making 30 a year. Funny thing, Obama's at 7million now, was about 1.3million in 2007.

But I wouldn't be surprised if those numbers are low, the wealthy know how to hide wealth.

Pays to be a politician in this great democracy of ours 👆

Originally posted by Star428
LOL. No, we're not. Keep telling yourself that all you want to. Won't make it true regardless of how many times you or anyone else shows your/their ignorance and makes that retarded statement. Go back to school and learn the pledge of allegiance, dude. We're a republic. [b]Period

Just wow, how you can call others ignorant is astounding. First off, I said in theory we were a democracy. This means we are SUPPOSED to be one. This does not mean I am saying we are. This is not up for debate, no matter what the country is..it is supposed to be a democracy. Again, that doesn't mean it is one. If you want to go have a debate about the type of government we truly have that is fine, I'm sure if you created a topic people would respond. However, there is absolutely zero debate though that this country is supposed to be democratic.

Originally posted by Star428
Also, you bringing Star Wars into this shows how clueless you really are on the subject and that you need a reality check.

Again you call others clueless..I just used Star Wars as an example.

Like I said, Surtur, keep the democracy definition debate out of here. There's a thread for it now.

Originally posted by Robtard
Hillary is worth about 22million net, so I don't see how together they're making 30 a year. Funny thing, Obama's at 7million now, was about 1.3million in 2007.

But I wouldn't be surprised if those numbers are low, the wealthy know how to hide wealth.

Pays to be a politician in this great democracy of ours 👆

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/16/hillary-and-bill-clinton-earn-more-than-25m-for-giving-100-speeches

Republican candidate tries to justify child molestation
https://mobile.twitter.com/arlogilbert/status/602221558497607680

Originally posted by Lestov16
Republican candidate tries to justify child molestation
https://mobile.twitter.com/arlogilbert/status/602221558497607680

He's probably just a big fan of "7th Heaven".

Originally posted by Lestov16
Republican candidate tries to justify child molestation
https://mobile.twitter.com/arlogilbert/status/602221558497607680

Child molestation + incest.

Bernie Sanders seems to be an interesting candidate.

Unfortunately, he's not getting any attention from the media 'cause Hillary.

The dems and media have just given the election to Hilary. This is the Freedom of Choice at its best.

We'll see how he does in the debates, hopefully he's able to stir enough interest that the media is forced to look his way.

Said it before, this "here you go Hills, you've waited long enough" approach isn't good for anyone.

Hilary is just doing aweful. Without the massive party and media support she would be done. How much longer can the party hold out till they drop support for her. We know that they will support her lies, dishonesty and bad candor. But one thing the party won't support is weakness and low numbers.

Two new criminal investigations have been launched into her email scandal.

Proof

http://www.gallup.com/poll/184346/sanders-surges-clinton-sags-favorability.aspx

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Hilary is just doing aweful. Without the massive party and media support she would be done. How much longer can the party hold out till they drop support for her.

Note the serious Republican candidates have similar ratings- when someone runs and becomes a top contender, their favorability drops, because everyone on the other side who's willing to give some credit, "Eh, they aren't my team, but they're all right," of course goes to, "Nah, don't like 'em."

Hillary and Jeb Bush have almost the same favorability ratings, for similar reasons (and both beat the heck out of Trump, who's at -24!).

As for Sanders... info-dump time.

Sanders is like Ron Paul. He has his supporters, and they are very strong supporters, but he lacks some appeal beyond that.

Five Thirty Eight did an analysis of the situation, and concluded the Bernie Surge was more about him than Hillary.

And, the stuff that'll turn the mainstream off him? He's for putting the Federal Reserve under congresses' control (now, is there anyone here, Republican or Democrat or foreigner or whatever, who think that *congress* would do a better job with the economy than the fed?). He's against international trade treaties- something that the President has a fair amount of control over.

Sure, he has support on stuff like minimum wage, but even among Democrats, I hear people supporting him not so much for *him*, but to push Hillary to take similar stances on some specific issues. He's popular now, but if he looked like he was really going to get into the running, those other policies would be attacked hard, and considering Democrats disagree with him on both the Fed and foreign trade, that makes his primary success unlikely.

Idealogues, of either party, rarely get the nomination.

We know that they will support her lies, dishonesty and bad candor.

Though it does help that a whole lot of the stuff she's accused of, is, in fact, false, and people know it. Benghazi? Free and clear even by Republican investigations, and those who trumpet it hurt their own credibility.

She does have mud on her, but it's fairly minor stuff. Trying to blow her up into a Nixonian figure doesn't work, and backfires even.

At the end of the day, she had a successful Senate run, Secretary of State run, the association with Bill's successes, and is left-center on most issues, which is a pretty good place to be for the final race. A lot of draw with moderates/independents plus support of the Democratic party- which she has for reason of her track record, it's not like it was just handed to her- will make her a very tough foe than any Republican challenger should take seriously.